Appeal No.	 EAT/4/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 2 March 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR L D COWAN
LORD DAVIES OF  COITY CBE

BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL	APPELLANT

MR G STEPHENS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR PETER OLDHAM
(of Counsel)

MR ROBERT MILES
Legal & Property Department
Bridgend County Borough Council
Civic Offices, Angel Street
Bridgend CF31 1LX	

	MR JUSTICE HOLLAND 	This matter has been listed before us by way of a preliminary hearing.  The problem arises as follows: the matter was initiated by an IT1 by which the Applicant complained that he had been unfairly dismissed by his employers, Bridgend County Borough Council.  For reasons that are not forthcoming on the papers before us and which are difficult to understand, it was decided that the matter should proceed by way of a hearing of a preliminary issue.  The issue that was identified was as to whether, the Applicant had been dismissed, or whether, as was alleged, he had voluntarily retired.  That preliminary hearing resulted in a Tribunal on 3 April 1998, ruling that he had been dismissed.  There then followed the hearing currently under appeal, that is, before a Tribunal sitting on and between 23 and 25 September 1998.  That Tribunal unanimously decided that the dismissal was unfair.  It left a remedy to the parties.

	The appeal currently mounted against that decision has various limbs to it.  One such being that the Tribunal failed to direct itself as to Section 98  Employment Rights Act 1996.  It is argued by Mr Oldham that had it applied its mind to Section 98, then the extended reasons should first reveal the reason as found by the Tribunal for the dismissal.  Second, it should then reveal the adjudication of the Tribunal with respect to the matters raised by Section 98(4), namely as to whether that dismissal for that reason was fair.

	We have considered those submissions in the light of the extended reasons, which on any view are somewhat confused.  We agree with Mr Oldham that there is an arguable point as to the application by the Tribunal of Section 98.  It is to be noted that the Tribunal does not even refer to Section 98, still less does it try to follow in terms the reasoning prescribed by that section.  It may be that in paragraphs 21 and 22, sufficient reasoning can be discerned, but we agree with Mr Oldham that there is a point here that merits argument and would justify an inter-partes hearing.  

	Thus it is that we direct that there be such hearing, hopefully at as earliest date as is reasonably practicable to the parties and to this Tribunal.